this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
1108 points (99.4% liked)
History Memes
3381 readers
1434 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism, atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Lemmy.world rules.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's hard watching the people around me make the same mistakes they always make and complain about the same mistakes they always make.
It's hard watching large organizations and states make the same mistakes they always make and blame everyone else for the mistakes they always make. Even when history proves them wrong.
I can never understand why people argue for 8+ billion people on this planet when we collectively refuse to learn from mistakes.
I'm tired...
I didn't state anything about population control.
I'm merely exhausted by the complexity that people must deal with for each person we add to this planet. That complexity would be far more manageable if humans didn't reproduce exponentially.
Yes we can support support 8 billion people. But why? From my understanding we got here mainly because capitalism and war has a high demand for warm bodies.
Maybe we can learn from our mistakes and deal with them rather than making excuses to remain on course for pain, suffering and disaster. Us humans learning and overcoming our current situation has the benefit for all life on this planet.
We got here pre-modern medicine has a high demand for babies (most of whom will die before reproducing). And agrarianism has a high demand for children (who become productive workers on the farm young).
Developed countries almost universally have birth rates below replacement levels. Their populations have internalized the facts that babies will almost always survive into adulthood. And children are a massive economic cost for decades. And that cost is often never paid back to the parents who incurred most of it. As long as contraceptives continue to make children typically a choice, and you get sub replacement levels of reproduction.
Sure, the capitalists would like for there to be more children to grow into workers and keep the machine humming along. However, they would also like to not pay for that; and by and large haven't been.
This, we have the ability to support everyone anyway.
People like solving problems with killing and death because they've been taught to do this, and it is such an easy cop out. Don't want to train you dog? Kill it. Problem solved. Don't want to trim your tree or pick up leaves in the fall? Kill it, chop it down, problem solved.
This provides enough serotonin and dopamine when faced with issues, that it conditions people to use "kill it" as an easy solution for everything. Even if it isn't the solution they settle on, it is such a habit and so comforting neurochemically that they will make like reflexive quips to keep it as a fantasy option even. Too many people in their opinion? Kill em, feels great, problem solved, easy, never even had to think but I feel as satisfied as if I DID think
All society needs to do is stop having babies for 20 years.....
This is a huge inference from what was originally said. The guy you're replying to has a point, the problem isn't that there's 8 billion of us, and saying we need to stop population growth to solve our problems does border on eco fascism.
Sex ed and sexual healthcare is important for other reasons, as you mentioned, but we need to stop saying shit like "we're the virus" because it's just eco fascism
Personally, I can't think of a reason why we should have more people on the planet. This isn't an argument for actively reducing the the number of people, but instead providing the tools, education, and laws to allow people to manage their family sizes to cap or at least reduce population growth.
FYI, we are the virus. Humanity is multiple extinction events happening at the same time. If we are going to survive, then we need to be the kind of virus to integrates into our host's DNA, and not the kind that destroys all the cells and delicate structures that allow our host to exist in the first place.
Why shouldn't people be allowed to have many children? In poorer countries having many children is a form of insurance, as a portion of them just straight up die before reaching adulthood, and because they can care for their elders. If people want many kids, they should be allowed to have them, but they should also have the options to use protection and healthcare, with that I agree.
Saying humanity is the virus is the part I don't agree with because most of the destruction is caused by a very small portion of humanity. We have enough resources on this planet to make sure all 8 billion (and more) of us can live comfortably, but instead the wealth distribution is so skewed that most of earth's resources and wealth goes to a small percentage of people. The problem in this world aren't poor families with 5 children, it's the wealthy elite trying to maximize their profits above everything. THEY are the virus.
This is a strawman argument, but I'll bite anyway.
Two reasons, logarithmic growth, and finite resources.
It's not all the virus particles that kill you, just the ones that knock out your essential organs.
The biggest climate impact the typical person can have, is to have fewer children. Hands down, that means fewer cars, less farming, less production, not only for that child, but any children they may have and so on.
Having many children as a form of insurance isn't required in nearly as many places, that's old-school semi-racist thinking. Providing a better chance for children to survive, and having a society that takes care of its elders eliminates this "need" entirely.
It's a cute idea, but getting those resources distributed evenly takes even more resources. I've read the article and it smells like bullshit to me because it uses GDP per capital to equate quality (or excess) of life. The availability of food, fresh water and shelter is not necessarily linked to GDP.
Totally agree, but let's not forget, those wealthy elites are the same species. Even if most of the virus isn't killing the host, it's still the same virus as the infection that is.
You'd make a great eco-fascist.
Are we doing ad-hominemns? You'd make a great idylic idiot, who doesn't understand population growth, or what the definition of fascism is.
I'm not calling for hard limits on population. I'm calling for people to have the choice, tools, and knowledge to control their reproduction. Any further inferences about sterlization, euthanasia, child limits, etc... is all purely a comprehension issue on your end.
You called human-beings a virus. An ad-hominem is when you insult someone in order to not address their argument. Pointing out your language of calling humans "viruses" to be fascist is not ad-hominem. It's directly addressing the language you used.
If you're gonna point to logical fallacies you might want to know what they actually mean.
Now. I could have misunderstood what you meant. You were not really clear. But that language is literally eco-fascist.
Maybe Google their talking points. Because you're repeating them even if you don't intend to.
Calling me an eco-fascist is the ad-hominem. It's missing the point that there is no benefit to having more people on the planet, there is no harm in providing people the means to control their reproduction (if they choose to do so). Eventually we will reach the carrying capacity of the planet which will require literally euthanizing or sterilizing people so that humanity can survive, so we will have to limit reproduction, and I'm in favor of encouraging people to do that electively right now. There is no sense in getting to that cricitical point earlier.
I did a quick search on what eco-fascists preach, and they seek to limit human population through violence or force ( which I'm not advocating for), along racial lines ( which I'm not advocating for), rejecting modernity ( I work in tech, definitely not something I'm for). I'm not an eco-fascist, and calling me one is an ad-hominemn to distract from the point that slowing or stopping human population growth through voluntary means is a gain for humanity as a whole.
I'm not using the same taking points as eco-fascists, and even if I was, I wouldn't be concerned and here is why... Regular fascists platformed on making the trains run on time, but it would be ridiculous to label anyone pro-rail infrastructure as a fascist. Similarity in tools, is not similarity in execution and goals.
Do you think fascist think they are bad guys? No, they justify their material actions in the same way you are. Most supporters of fascism aren't going to think "I'm doing this for the white race". No, they justify the same material actions through other means. And people like you fall for it. They do this until their support and power is so strong they can claim their true beliefs.
When you say things like "caring capacity of the planet". Like, that's actually a realistic threat. I'm going to call it out for what it is. Just absolute pseudo science and anti-human shit.
Dude, the planet is going to become inhospital in most places for human life within the next century or two. Any talk about population is a mask for fascist to decide which people are allowed to live in hospitable places. And who they decide will die. You're falling for some really dumb shit pretending to be scientific when looked at in a vacuum.
Eco-fascist stand their as a solution to the "hard truths" of climate change. Masking themselves as scientific and reasonable. They are not offering solutions for humanity. They are offering solutions for who they view as human and "leser than". But they're not gonna say that. They're gonna say the same thing you are saying.
I understand you likely don't believe in eco-fascist goals of eugenics. But that doesn't mean you aren't using their exact same playbook in what you are saying.
Even if your falsehoods were correct. They are meaningless unless your material goal is fascism and deciding which groups of people are allowed to have children (and really that just means which groups are allowed to live). Seriously. Follow this to its logical conclusion. You are verbatim using eco-fascist talking points.
There is not a gray area here. The intentions will not save people from the material events that will unfold to suppress a groups population.
They don't make up their talking points to convince other white supremacists. They make up their talking points to fool people like you into believing they are "hard truths".
If you find yourself often being called "fascist" and think "all these leftist just call everyone a Nazi". Then I hope you come to the realization that what people are saying is that you are repeating fascist talking points.
Fascist don't care if you believe in their race supremacy. They just care that you are just convinced enough to believe enough of their truths to not stop them.
I think you'd benefit from from listening to this short video.
https://youtu.be/0YFdwfNh5vs
Listen and maybe try to understand why the people that support "strong borders" aren't exactly the same as you supporting "hard truths of population". These are the same fascist goals. They are flexible in their lies and fooling you in the same way they fooled those idiots saying "build that wall".
Eco fascism is just the version of fascism meant to bring well intentioned liberals to support their ideology.
Point out where I'm advocating for one race to be eliminated or preserved over another one. Direct quotes please, otherwise any intent of racial bias exists entirely in your own mind and misunderstanding. Drop this line of attack, it's not valid and you can't make it stick.
Not sure if typo, but the term is "carrying capacity", this may affect your understanding of my comment if you think I actually meant "caring capacity". Carrying capacity is the maximum number of a species that can exist in an environment/area. It's hilarious to see you write about carrying capacity being false (assuming you read the correct term) in one paragraph, and then immediately turn around and state this...
...Which pretty explicitly recognizes that the space on this planet that humans can live on is finite, and will get even smaller if we don't change our current climate trends. This logical inconsistency seems pretty on point for you though. I really suggest that you examine your opinions, especially when they are right next to each other, and then come to a singluar point that you can argue instead of just throwing shit at the wall and hoping that I don't call you out on it.
You're saying here that I'm advocating for eco-fascist tools and tactics, and therefore I must be an eco-fascist. Let me reduce this argument further, "if you use the same tools as a group, you must be part of the group". Well, famously, the Nazis wore clothes and drove cars, if you do either of those then congratulations; by your logic, you are a Nazi. So tell me, why are you advocating for the extermination of Jews? Or is it that your logic is flawed and your conclusions about my alignment with eco-fascism is void of any actual evidence?
Let's examine this point a little more... I'm not stupid, and I'm willing to believe you're not stupid. You're insinuating that equitorial regions, like Central America, Africa and India are going to be the regions primarily affected by global warming... These are areas where the people are predominantly targeted by racial profiling by hate groups. So what you are saying, is that it's an Eco-Fascist position to advocate for global ability for individuals to control reproduction, but the alternative is that the people in these areas die first and most frequently during a global climate crisis. It's seems pretty fucking racist to me to fight against global population efforts while acknowledging that people of those demographics are going to be the most vulnerable to the inevitable crisis caused by global (not regional) population growth. If that was too much, let my summarize, the full consequences of your position as I understand it; it's racist to give people globally the tools to electively control their reproduction, and you're alright with marginalized groups dying because of the consequences of rapid population growth in wealthier (whiter, I might dare to add) areas? And you think I'm the one here who is unwittingly racist? Really?
No, it is explained in the rest of my post. You can't just simply assert your first statement without evidence. Did you miss the whole section on you being a nazi because you (probably) drive a car and wear clothes? Your argument that I'm an eco-fascist is built on the exact same framework. If you want to call me an Eco-Fascist, then you need to point to statement where I explicitly say that I am an eco-fascist, or I explicitly call for eco-fascism. Note that Eco-fascism is the use of authoritarianism, violence, and force to explicitly wipe out ethnic groups and using vague justifications about the environment to support it.
Since you seem confused by my actual position, let me try to clearly state it for you, and you can try to attack that.
The earth is finite, therefore the resources on earth are finite. People need those resources to live, therefore the maximum population of people on the planet is finite. Please note here that I am not arguing that we have reached that limit, or are even near that limit.
Humans are by far the biggest driver of climate change, and the more people there are on the planet, the faster this will occur, and regions of the planet will become inhospitable more quickly.
There is no benefit to increasing the total number of people on the planet at this point.
Providing everyone with the means to self limit their reproduction is a gain for humanity and life as we know it. Note that this is not a call for euthanasia, sterilization, or government incentives to go childless, nor is it a call to specifically target certain regions or demographics. I think we should provide global access to contraceptives to both sexes, along with education about reproduction, laws guaranteeing an individual's right to reproductive autonomy, social safety nets to care for the elderly without relying on their children, and education on the damage the human population is doing to biodiversity and life on Earth.
None of that is ecofascism, at no point do I call for authoritarian, violent, or racist policies to be used, all 3 of which are core tenants of eco-fascism.
I read your whole comment mate. I can reply to one part and realize that you're not actually acknowledging my point. I was trying to simplify things for you because you seem to not be able to respond well to long replies. I was pointing to a really obvious misunderstanding of our discussion. You can't even acknowledge that?
I'll put it simply with an extreme example. Again, this is an EXAMPLE. I'm not calling you a Nazi. I'm using an extreme analogy to make a point.
Being a Nazi does not require one to acknowledge that they are a Nazi. If that was the requirement no one but the Nazis of 1930-1940s Germany would fit the definition. One can still be rightfully called a Nazi when they are repeating Nazi talking points. Regardless of their intentions or misunderstandings. We'd call them a Nazi.
You are consistently repeating eco fascist talking points. I don't care about you're own internal rationalizing for that. They are eco fascist and you are saying them. That's it. You can try to justify that to yourself but it doesn't make you repeating the same things eco-fascist say any less of a reality. That's what you did.
You're missing 2 things.
1, I did not repeat eco-fascist talking points. Quote the relevant text from me along with providing a source on eco-fascist positions of you want to continue to make this argument.
That was the tongue-in-cheek point of my comment about you jumping to conclusions about the previous comment. They said that they don't think more people on the planet is beneficial, and you went straight to calling people them an eco-nazi without bothering to understand what they meant.
Woosh.
I can't tell which is worse; your reading comprehension or the irony of you saying I'm the one jumping to conclusions.
Maybe reread the initial comment I made. I asked for clarification on what they meant because I DIDN'T jump to conclusions. Then I clarified why I was asking because that language around "population" is often used by white supremacists.
I never accused that comment of such things and they followed it up with a clarification. We had an adult conversation and didn't make a childish comment like you did.
Maybe go read it. Because it seems like you might need an example of how to actually communicate with people around sensitive subjects without just straw manning what someone is asking and saying.
You can misunderstand my comment. That's fine. That can happen. But you're doubling down on your misunderstanding now and pretending that that's what I "secretly" meant. You are being childish.
Oh shit I'm sorry, this wasn't you?
OH WAIT.
The real rich thing is you saying "I don't want to jump to conclusions" and then the next two sentences are "You must be talking about population control and Nazi eugenics shit".
Don't fuck with me. I've got receipts.
Not really much of a conversation TBH. Just try to avoid associating peope with Nazis or Eco-Fascists before you try to understand what they are saying. I did see your split off thread, and I'm glad there was a more measured and serious tone in there...
You could have just left it at your first paragraph and left out your incomplete opinions about how the only solution is population control through eugenics. I thought it was a funny interaction, boiled it down to its core concepts, threw in a dash of all caps no spaces and it blew up.